Genuine question to PBers of all hues - beyond simply leaving, what would you change about the EU to improve it? What are the fundamental problems you see with it?
As an instinctive IN-er, but with a pragmatic understanding of its shortcomings, the two major issues for me are inefficiency and lack of democracy. I'm much less bothered about free movement.
Revert to a Trade Association Have free borders to travel and reside, but not to claim any benefits unless have paid the relevant taxes for at least ten years. Forget about common currency between unbalanced economies. No EU law/agreement is valid unless passed by each parliament of each member country.
Re FIFA..If it was suggested that the votes for Russia and Qatar were found to be corrupt then any USA based sponsor would have to withdraw sponsorship..it probably means the games would not be run because of lack of money..
This is Russia, who just pissed $50bn on the Winter Olympics, and Qatar, spending $100bn on World Cup infrastructure at the cost of hundreds of lives.
Sponsors income is a rounding error in that context. They're holding the events for national pride and (perhaps more tellingly) for personal aggrandisement. Both cups would be funded by the holding nations even if all the current sponsors pulled out.
And that assumes that current sponsors would not be replaced by new ones. I doubt Alibaba or Xiaomi give a tinker's cuss about the allegations.
Russia spent $50bn on Sochi when oil was $115/barrel. It's now half that.
Strange how the Express is taking credit for the Referendum being in the Queen's Speech, when the party for which they were cheerleading (and its owner was funding) had precisely one MP watching that Queen's Speech.
Perhaps the 11.3m who voted Conservative in spite of the Express might actually be more deserving of credit?
The Express claim is rubbish. But it is true tat if it were not for the party represented by that 1 MP then those 11.3 million who voted Conservative would never have got the chance to vote for a referendum. It is only the existence of UKIP that has forced Cameron to concede a referendum.
"All this is a valid objection to having referendums at all, and leaving it to Parliament."
I agree with your view in general, but the exception that proves the rule is that the people have the right to decide who makes the laws under which they live.
I can't think of a fairer way than a referendum to consult the people in this particular case.
The Speaker has confirmed he has no power to stop an amendment to the Standing Orders. Grayling is claiming English votes for English laws will be effected via amendments to the Standing Orders.
The Speaker has confirmed he has no power to stop an amendment to the Standing Orders. Grayling is claiming English votes for English laws will be effected via amendments to the Standing Orders.
Organisations that were founded for the benefit of its members usually over the years become self serving, have an extremely complicated rule-book and are overfull of bureaucrats who become dependent upon it for their income. Such organisations then require ripping apart and rebuilding
A brilliant and succinct summary I feel, as well as being so widely applicable.
But just as valid a comment on our own government! Why not rip that up and start again?
Government should be constantly reinvigorating themselves (a complicated rulebook I think is the least problematic of the issues raised, which would cover the confusing but inconsequential parts of our system), absolutely, so rebuilding is fine - whether our government or other organisations need completely ripping up rather than a tinkering rebuild depends I would say on how bad things have gotten in terms of self serving corruption and a rotten core, and how much genuine good worth is still being provided. The EU is doing better than Fifa on those terms, and despite our flaws ours better than the EU.
Re FIFA..If it was suggested that the votes for Russia and Qatar were found to be corrupt then any USA based sponsor would have to withdraw sponsorship..it probably means the games would not be run because of lack of money..
This is Russia, who just pissed $50bn on the Winter Olympics, and Qatar, spending $100bn on World Cup infrastructure at the cost of hundreds of lives.
Sponsors income is a rounding error in that context. They're holding the events for national pride and (perhaps more tellingly) for personal aggrandisement. Both cups would be funded by the holding nations even if all the current sponsors pulled out.
And that assumes that current sponsors would not be replaced by new ones. I doubt Alibaba or Xiaomi give a tinker's cuss about the allegations.
Russia spent $50bn on Sochi when oil was $115/barrel. It's now half that.
So what? The already committed spending on infrastructure is a fraction of the sponsors income - most of which is retained by FIFA anyway.
I appreciate it's irrational to make future spending decisions based on sunk costs, but that's what will be done because it's politically unacceptable any other way.
Mr Felix I'm not sure of your point. Cameron has repeatedly stated he will campaign to stay in a reformed EU, when it becomes obvious there is no such thing his credibility on the subject is in tatters.
Look at what you wrote - you said the voters had been conned. You have no evidence for that other than your own sour grapes that Labour's message has been decisively rejected. Your comment betrays a lack of respect for the voters. As did Sadiq Khan's comments about them being 'bastards'. You need more respect for the voters and their choices. As for Cameron's credibility - well he has decisively trounced Labour in 2 elections - clearly the voters have no problem with it. You need to get real and move on.
In one election he was short of majority by 18, in the other above majority by 7.
Is "trounce" the most appropriate word ? What will you have used if his majority was 166 ?
What is his majority over Labour ?
Labour gained four seats (net) from the Tories, in spite of a growing economy and Ed as leader. It was much less than the polls suggested, but it was a net gain nevertheless.
Labour also gained 1.5% vote share in spite of the SNP and UKIP incursions into their vote. They weren't "trounced". That is a Tory Story.
The Tory majority is entirely based on their 28 gains from the LibDems (less their four losses to Labour). It was the LibDems who were trounced.
It is also true that Labour was trounced by the SNP. But that had nothing to do with the Tories.
If I had told you in April that by late May you'd be going nur-nur-ne-nur-nurr because Labour ACTUALLY made net gains of four seats off the Tories, you would have said THAT would have been a Tory story!
The long titles of two government bills have now been published:
European Union Referendum [Secretary Philip Hammond]: A Bill to make provision for the holding of a referendum in the United Kingdom and Gibraltar on whether the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union. Scotland [Secretary David Mundell]: A Bill to amend the Scotland Act 1998 and make provision about the functions of the Scottish Ministers; and for connected purposes.
It now seems very clear that the EU referendum will be a consultative referendum like those in Scotland and Wales in 1997 rather than one with definite legal consequences like those in Scotland and Wales in 1979 or on the alternative vote in 2011.
So, if we were to vote No, we could be asked to reconsider.
Anorak's take on the world cups seems sound I think. Plenty of other sponsors out there, it would be a nightmare to try to change things round at this stage, and the host nations won't give a damn about a bit of extra cash. Fifa can hold firm on those ones and be fine.
I disagree. Getting bogged down in detail is not where BOO should be going. Left-wing eurosceptics have a different vision of the future to right wing eurosceptics.
The BOO campaign is not a political party. It can't determine what our future will be post-exit.
But that is exactly the weakness of the BOO position, and why they will lose massively. They are selling a pig in a poke. No-one has the faintest clue what Out would actually mean, and the BOO side are doing absolutely nothing to define it. That will leave space for the Stay In side to define it for them, and the definition they will provide will be nasty, brutish and short: 'millions of jobs lost'. [For the avoidance of doubt, since I know I will as usual be misprepresented by the Kippers here, I am NOT saying that this definition is accurate, merely that it will be used by the BBC, the unions, Labour, the CBI, the City, and many others, and that it will work].
It's probably already too late for the BOOers to correct this situation - they should have started three years ago rather than working, as so many did, to put Ed Miliband into No 10. Even if it's not too late, there's precious little sign of the BOOers actually having a coherent vision, or even wanting one. That's probably because the detail is, actually, very tricky: if you address the jobs issue by a comprehensive trade agreement with the EU, you're going to to have to accept much of the loss of sovereignty which is the motivation of the BOOers in the first place. There's no getting away from that.
Genuine question to PBers of all hues - beyond simply leaving, what would you change about the EU to improve it? What are the fundamental problems you see with it?
As an instinctive IN-er, but with a pragmatic understanding of its shortcomings, the two major issues for me are inefficiency and lack of democracy. I'm much less bothered about free movement.
Reform of the CAP (and related, Fishing Rights/Issues). Scrap the waste of money that is Strasbourg (Parliament should have a single seat not 2 - utterly pointless waste of money). Increase Democracy (which effectively means boosting the power of the EU Parliament over the Commission / Individual Ministers - this also requires people to actually vote in the EU Elections on the basis of who they want in the EU Parliament, rather than as a 'hit the Government' etc. so there is an element of chicken / egg about this one...
Genuine question to PBers of all hues - beyond simply leaving, what would you change about the EU to improve it? What are the fundamental problems you see with it?
As an instinctive IN-er, but with a pragmatic understanding of its shortcomings, the two major issues for me are inefficiency and lack of democracy. I'm much less bothered about free movement.
The unfair, inefficient and discriminatory pigs-ear that is the current immigration system, and its inability to deliver a level of immigration (whatever that might be) decided by parliament or the people. The fact that the government had a stated policy to reduce immigration (regardless of the merits of that policy) and was unable to deliver it due to EU regulations speaks volumes.
Combine that with the ridiculous position where we are forced to accept unskilled EU immigrants, and then when they can't find a job, pay for them with benefits, healthcare and education for their children, and yet people with say, foreign spouses from outside the EU need to prove they can earn £18,500+ per year, pay a surcharge for their possible use of the NHS (£600 in advance) and pay just shy of £1000 for a visa, even if they are well skilled and have a head start in integrating into the community.
Re FIFA..If it was suggested that the votes for Russia and Qatar were found to be corrupt then any USA based sponsor would have to withdraw sponsorship..it probably means the games would not be run because of lack of money..
What happened with the Winter Olympics and the bribery around the US being awarded the Games? The Games remained at Salt Lake City, the relevant officials were dealt with and new standards were adopted. Most of the FBI investigation has little to do the selection process for WC host.
The Speaker has confirmed he has no power to stop an amendment to the Standing Orders. Grayling is claiming English votes for English laws will be effected via amendments to the Standing Orders.
So who will rule which debate/Bill comes under English laws - the Speaker? Also will Scots, Welsh and Ulster MPs be allowed to take part in such debates?
I disagree. Getting bogged down in detail is not where BOO should be going. Left-wing eurosceptics have a different vision of the future to right wing eurosceptics.
The BOO campaign is not a political party. It can't determine what our future will be post-exit.
But that is exactly the weakness of the BOO position, and why they will lose massively. They are selling a pig in a poke. No-one has the faintest clue what Out would actually mean, and the BOO side are doing absolutely nothing to define it. That will leave space for the Stay In side to define it for them, and the definition they will provide will be nasty, brutish and short: 'millions of jobs lost'. [For the avoidance of doubt, since I know I will as usual be misprepresented by the Kippers here, I am NOT saying that this definition is accurate, merely that it will be used by the BBC, the unions, Labour, the CBI, the City, and many others, and that it will work].
It's probably already too late for the BOOers to correct this situation - they should have started three years ago rather than working, as so many did, to put Ed Miliband into No 10. Even if it's not too late, there's precious little sign of the BOOers actually having a coherent vision, or even wanting one. That's probably because the detail is, actually, very tricky: if you address the jobs issue by a comprehensive trade agreement with the EU, you're going to to have to accept much of the loss of sovereignty which is the motivation of the BOOers in the first place. There's no getting away from that.
Pfft... no one has a clue what IN will deliver either.
Will we be forced to take thousands of African immigrants currently in Greece and Italy Will we be impacted by the Transaction Tax whether we want it or not Will we continue to be in "ever closer union" Will we end up pickup up the tab for GrExit and financial fallout for other Eurodisasters despite not being in the Euro ? Will prisoners get votes ? Will we be able to throw extremists out of the country when we need to or will they be able to stay because of their "right to family life"
All we know is that what ever it delivers it will be outside the control of the democratic will of the British people thanks for the glorious system of qualified majority voting.
BOO don't need a solution, they just need to convince the people that they are not in control of their own laws, country and borders, and pose the question "who's country is it anyway ?". Its up to politicians that follow to turn the desire of the people into reality.
Re FIFA..If it was suggested that the votes for Russia and Qatar were found to be corrupt then any USA based sponsor would have to withdraw sponsorship..it probably means the games would not be run because of lack of money..
This is Russia, who just pissed $50bn on the Winter Olympics, and Qatar, spending $100bn on World Cup infrastructure at the cost of hundreds of lives.
Sponsors income is a rounding error in that context. They're holding the events for national pride and (perhaps more tellingly) for personal aggrandisement. Both cups would be funded by the holding nations even if all the current sponsors pulled out.
And that assumes that current sponsors would not be replaced by new ones. I doubt Alibaba or Xiaomi give a tinker's cuss about the allegations.
It's down to the big European Federations now. If they were to announce that they would not play in a World Cup in Russia or Qatar, and would organise their own federation and competition if FIFA had not sorted itself out by x date then they would have enormous leverage and take most of the TV and sponsorship interest with them if forced to follow through.
Provided they are able to make a generous offer to non-Europeans I think they would be able to put FIFA out of its misery pretty quickly.
But that is exactly the weakness of the BOO position, and why they will lose massively. They are selling a pig in a poke. No-one has the faintest clue what Out would actually mean, and the BOO side are doing absolutely nothing to define it.
But if you do try to define it (especially in a non-radical way), then the powers that be will simply say "that isn't on the table" (see e.g. Scotland/currency).
So, if we were to vote No, we could be asked to reconsider.
Yes. A clause ought to be introduced, that if the Chief Counting Officer certifies that the total number of votes for "No" exceeds the total number of votes for "Yes", then (a) it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to notify the European Council under article 50(2) TEU of Her Majesty's Government intention to withdraw from the European Union, and (b) it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State, by order, to repeal the European Communities Act 1972 within two years of the fulfilment of the duty in (a).
The long titles of two government bills have now been published:
European Union Referendum [Secretary Philip Hammond]: A Bill to make provision for the holding of a referendum in the United Kingdom and Gibraltar on whether the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union. Scotland [Secretary David Mundell]: A Bill to amend the Scotland Act 1998 and make provision about the functions of the Scottish Ministers; and for connected purposes.
It now seems very clear that the EU referendum will be a consultative referendum like those in Scotland and Wales in 1997 rather than one with definite legal consequences like those in Scotland and Wales in 1979 or on the alternative vote in 2011.
So, if we were to vote No, we could be asked to reconsider.
Publicising that looks like the best chance of getting a No vote - if it isn't final then more people will vote for it, and we might actually get e.g. treaty change.
The long titles of two government bills have now been published:
European Union Referendum [Secretary Philip Hammond]: A Bill to make provision for the holding of a referendum in the United Kingdom and Gibraltar on whether the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union. Scotland [Secretary David Mundell]: A Bill to amend the Scotland Act 1998 and make provision about the functions of the Scottish Ministers; and for connected purposes.
It now seems very clear that the EU referendum will be a consultative referendum like those in Scotland and Wales in 1997 rather than one with definite legal consequences like those in Scotland and Wales in 1979 or on the alternative vote in 2011.
So, if we were to vote No, we could be asked to reconsider.
Cameron is gambling on a YES vote to stay in the EU. Problem is that the NO voters may be motivated to vote and win because the EU is such a massive issue for millions of people. Just hope that there is a balanced debate and as someone pro EU that YES voters are motivated to go out to vote.
UK citizens living in mainland EU should be given the vote, because they could be the ones mostly affected by a NO vote. They currently have residency and healthcare rights as EU citizens, which might be subject to change if the UK withdraws.
But if you do try to define it (especially in a non-radical way), then the powers that be will simply say "that isn't on the table" (see e.g. Scotland/currency).
It's not an easy hand to play at all.
That is also true. What is striking is that the BOOers and Kippers don't seem to understand the scale of the challenge. They are being misled by the fact that people moan about the EU into thinking that they'll therefore vote for Out. It's not so.
I disagree. Getting bogged down in detail is not where BOO should be going. Left-wing eurosceptics have a different vision of the future to right wing eurosceptics.
The BOO campaign is not a political party. It can't determine what our future will be post-exit.
But that is exactly the weakness of the BOO position, and why they will lose massively. They are selling a pig in a poke. No-one has the faintest clue what Out would actually mean, and the BOO side are doing absolutely nothing to define it. That will leave space for the Stay In side to define it for them, and the definition they will provide will be nasty, brutish and short: 'millions of jobs lost'. [For the avoidance of doubt, since I know I will as usual be misprepresented by the Kippers here, I am NOT saying that this definition is accurate, merely that it will be used by the BBC, the unions, Labour, the CBI, the City, and many others, and that it will work].
It's probably already too late for the BOOers to correct this situation - they should have started three years ago rather than working, as so many did, to put Ed Miliband into No 10. Even if it's not too late, there's precious little sign of the BOOers actually having a coherent vision, or even wanting one. That's probably because the detail is, actually, very tricky: if you address the jobs issue by a comprehensive trade agreement with the EU, you're going to to have to accept much of the loss of sovereignty which is the motivation of the BOOers in the first place. There's no getting away from that.
Probably correct overall, but bear in mind that In is also self-confessedly selling a pig in a poke - if In, we will be In an entirely new-look EU because of all the concessions that Superdave is going to negotiate, only we don't know what they are yet - so In can't claim to be offering a coherent vision atm either.
I don't think the millions of jobs lost story will have much traction, and I do think that things will be more complex and less predictable than you suppose. A lot will depend on the words and actions, and UK public perception, of people like Merkel and Hollande and Juncker.
I think pre-election you were mocking the silly kippers for prospectively letting in a Mili led government and depriving themselves of the very thing they wanted until 2020 at the earliest. Does it not look now a bit as if they have rather played a blinder?
Re FIFA..If it was suggested that the votes for Russia and Qatar were found to be corrupt then any USA based sponsor would have to withdraw sponsorship..it probably means the games would not be run because of lack of money..
This is Russia, who just pissed $50bn on the Winter Olympics, and Qatar, spending $100bn on World Cup infrastructure at the cost of hundreds of lives.
Sponsors income is a rounding error in that context. They're holding the events for national pride and (perhaps more tellingly) for personal aggrandisement. Both cups would be funded by the holding nations even if all the current sponsors pulled out.
And that assumes that current sponsors would not be replaced by new ones. I doubt Alibaba or Xiaomi give a tinker's cuss about the allegations.
It's down to the big European Federations now. If they were to announce that they would not play in a World Cup in Russia or Qatar, and would organise their own federation and competition if FIFA had not sorted itself out by x date then they would have enormous leverage and take most of the TV and sponsorship interest with them if forced to follow through.
Provided they are able to make a generous offer to non-Europeans I think they would be able to put FIFA out of its misery pretty quickly.
That's true, I think, and the most likely mechanism to force FIFA to change. Interesting that the TV companies have been notable only for their silence.
An uphill battle, though, getting the various UEFA members to fall into line will a challenge. Like herding rabid cats through a warehouse full of mice and canaries.
I think pre-election you were mocking the silly kippers for prospectively letting in a Mili led government and depriving themselves of the very thing they wanted until 2020 at the earliest. Does it not look now a bit as if they have rather played a blinder?
No, it looks as though they failed even to achieve the daft thing they were trying to achieve, thank goodness.
Re FIFA..If it was suggested that the votes for Russia and Qatar were found to be corrupt then any USA based sponsor would have to withdraw sponsorship..it probably means the games would not be run because of lack of money..
This is Russia, who just pissed $50bn on the Winter Olympics, and Qatar, spending $100bn on World Cup infrastructure at the cost of hundreds of lives.
Sponsors income is a rounding error in that context. They're holding the events for national pride and (perhaps more tellingly) for personal aggrandisement. Both cups would be funded by the holding nations even if all the current sponsors pulled out.
And that assumes that current sponsors would not be replaced by new ones. I doubt Alibaba or Xiaomi give a tinker's cuss about the allegations.
It's down to the big European Federations now. If they were to announce that they would not play in a World Cup in Russia or Qatar, and would organise their own federation and competition if FIFA had not sorted itself out by x date then they would have enormous leverage and take most of the TV and sponsorship interest with them if forced to follow through.
Provided they are able to make a generous offer to non-Europeans I think they would be able to put FIFA out of its misery pretty quickly.
How many European votes did Qatar win? It wasn't just Platini. Of course Blatter voted for the US...
Sad to hear of Carswell reportedly being assaulted by 'protesters'.
Not good. You should listen to his interview with Iain Dale (link on Guido's). Shaken up, and he genuinely believes that they'd have kicked the sh1t out of him if the police hadn't turned up.
I disagree. Getting bogged down in detail is not where BOO should be going. Left-wing eurosceptics have a different vision of the future to right wing eurosceptics.
The BOO campaign is not a political party. It can't determine what our future will be post-exit.
But that is exactly the weakness of the BOO position, and why they will lose massively. They are selling a pig in a poke. No-one has the faintest clue what Out would actually mean, and the BOO side are doing absolutely nothing to define it. That will leave space for the Stay In side to define it for them, and the definition they will provide will be nasty, brutish and short: 'millions of jobs lost'. [For the avoidance of doubt, since I know I will as usual be misprepresented by the Kippers here, I am NOT saying that this definition is accurate, merely that it will be used by the BBC, the unions, Labour, the CBI, the City, and many others, and that it will work].
It's probably already too late for the BOOers to correct this situation - they should have started three years ago rather than working, as so many did, to put Ed Miliband into No 10. Even if it's not too late, there's precious little sign of the BOOers actually having a coherent vision, or even wanting one. That's probably because the detail is, actually, very tricky: if you address the jobs issue by a comprehensive trade agreement with the EU, you're going to to have to accept much of the loss of sovereignty which is the motivation of the BOOers in the first place. There's no getting away from that.
We can't predict the future, and it would be dishonest to pretend that we can. How can we predict whether the UK will have a right or left-wing government?
Working out a detailed agreement that would appeal to right wing Conservatives would alienate anyone who isn't a right wing Conservative and vice versa.
I disagree. Getting bogged down in detail is not where BOO should be going. Left-wing eurosceptics have a different vision of the future to right wing eurosceptics.
The BOO campaign is not a political party. It can't determine what our future will be post-exit.
But that is exactly the weakness of the BOO position, and why they will lose massively. They are selling a pig in a poke. No-one has the faintest clue what Out would actually mean, and the BOO side are doing absolutely nothing to define it. That will leave space for the Stay In side to define it for them, and the definition they will provide will be nasty, brutish and short: 'millions of jobs lost'. [For the avoidance of doubt, since I know I will as usual be misprepresented by the Kippers here, I am NOT saying that this definition is accurate, merely that it will be used by the BBC, the unions, Labour, the CBI, the City, and many others, and that it will work].
It's probably already too late for the BOOers to correct this situation - they should have started three years ago rather than working, as so many did, to put Ed Miliband into No 10. Even if it's not too late, there's precious little sign of the BOOers actually having a coherent vision, or even wanting one. That's probably because the detail is, actually, very tricky: if you address the jobs issue by a comprehensive trade agreement with the EU, you're going to to have to accept much of the loss of sovereignty which is the motivation of the BOOers in the first place. There's no getting away from that.
The way for BOO to win is by appointing a credible spokesperson, setting up an effective campaigning organisation (now) and focusing its messages on the undecided, not the committed Outters.
IMHO, that should be about how voting Out would lead us to joining EFTA, which is actually voting *for* the free trading block that people thought they were voting for in 1975, but without any of the political and economic integration, with extra judicial action at a European level.
Best chance for No: Get Nick Clegg to lead the Yes campaign.
Actually, and you may all be surprised to hear this, I'm hoping that Priti will be leading the No campaign. If No wins, she would be PM before you could say "Up Yours Delors".
The long titles of two government bills have now been published:
European Union Referendum [Secretary Philip Hammond]: A Bill to make provision for the holding of a referendum in the United Kingdom and Gibraltar on whether the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union. Scotland [Secretary David Mundell]: A Bill to amend the Scotland Act 1998 and make provision about the functions of the Scottish Ministers; and for connected purposes.
It now seems very clear that the EU referendum will be a consultative referendum like those in Scotland and Wales in 1997 rather than one with definite legal consequences like those in Scotland and Wales in 1979 or on the alternative vote in 2011.
So, if we were to vote No, we could be asked to reconsider.
Publicising that looks like the best chance of getting a No vote - if it isn't final then more people will vote for it, and we might actually get e.g. treaty change.
Indeed. We can treat it as a vote of No Confidence, rather than the final deal.
Mr Felix I'm not sure of your point. Cameron has repeatedly stated he will campaign to stay in a reformed EU, when it becomes obvious there is no such thing his credibility on the subject is in tatters.
.
In one election he was short of majority by 18, in the other above majority by 7.
Is "trounce" the most appropriate word ? What will you have used if his majority was 166 ?
What is his majority over Labour ?
Labour gained four seats (net) from the Tories, in spite of a growing economy and Ed as leader. It was much less than the polls suggested, but it was a net gain nevertheless.
Labour also gained 1.5% vote share in spite of the SNP and UKIP incursions into their vote. They weren't "trounced". That is a Tory Story.
The Tory majority is entirely based on their 28 gains from the LibDems (less their four losses to Labour). It was the LibDems who were trounced.
It is also true that Labour was trounced by the SNP. But that had nothing to do with the Tories.
If I had told you in April that by late May you'd be going nur-nur-ne-nur-nurr because Labour ACTUALLY made net gains of four seats off the Tories, you would have said THAT would have been a Tory story!
And it was only a miserable 2 net anyway :-)
Lab gain from Con (10):
Brentford & Isleworth Chester Dewsbury Ealing Central and Acton Enfield North Hove Ilford N Lancaster & Fleetwood Wirral W Wolverhampton SW
Con gain From Lab (8)
Bolton W Derby N Gower Morley and Outwood Plymouth Moorview Southampton Itchen Telford Vale of Clywd
"All about the Plymouth Moorview!!!!!!!" was one of the top 10 posts of the night from Ave it!
Genuine question to PBers of all hues - beyond simply leaving, what would you change about the EU to improve it? What are the fundamental problems you see with it?
As an instinctive IN-er, but with a pragmatic understanding of its shortcomings, the two major issues for me are inefficiency and lack of democracy. I'm much less bothered about free movement.
I'm not unhappy with the EU as it stands. But I broadly agree with the BOOers who feel that the EU won't and shouldn't just drift along as it is now. I'd like to see the President of the Parliament (or, less logically, the head of the Commission) directly elected by the whole European electorate, giving a direct engagement for all voters with the EU as a whole, rather than merely sending representatives to do the job at one remove. We'd get choices like "Do you want Angela Merkel or Ed Miliband?", forcing people to think beyond nationalities and look at what people actually want for the EU as a whole.
The Speaker has confirmed he has no power to stop an amendment to the Standing Orders. Grayling is claiming English votes for English laws will be effected via amendments to the Standing Orders.
And can be scrapped by a future Government in the same way. OK.
Grayling confirms there will be a vote in government time to repeal the Hunting Act 2004, an outrageous breach of the people of England's fundamental rights.
Grayling confirms there will be a vote in government time to repeal the Hunting Act 2004, an outrageous breach of the people of England's fundamental rights.
This isn't a one-off. UAF burnt an effigy of Nick Griffin on the night of his QT appearance, Farage has been chased out of pubs in Scotland and England, and now there's this.
It's an utter disgrace. Checking Twitter, there's a good photo of at least one of the culprits, so hopefully some action can be taken.
The Speaker has confirmed he has no power to stop an amendment to the Standing Orders. Grayling is claiming English votes for English laws will be effected via amendments to the Standing Orders.
And can be scrapped by a future Government in the same way. OK.
Constitutionally perhaps, but there's a ratchet effect. How on earth would you justify in principle re-creating the WLQ (as opposed to tolerating its continued existence)?
Genuine question to PBers of all hues - beyond simply leaving, what would you change about the EU to improve it? What are the fundamental problems you see with it?
As an instinctive IN-er, but with a pragmatic understanding of its shortcomings, the two major issues for me are inefficiency and lack of democracy. I'm much less bothered about free movement.
I'm not unhappy with the EU as it stands. But I broadly agree with the BOOers who feel that the EU won't and shouldn't just drift along as it is now. I'd like to see the President of the Parliament (or, less logically, the head of the Commission) directly elected by the whole European electorate, giving a direct engagement for all voters with the EU as a whole, rather than merely sending representatives to do the job at one remove. We'd get choices like "Do you want Angela Merkel or Ed Miliband?", forcing people to think beyond nationalities and look at what people actually want for the EU as a whole.
The Speaker has confirmed he has no power to stop an amendment to the Standing Orders. Grayling is claiming English votes for English laws will be effected via amendments to the Standing Orders.
And can be scrapped by a future Government in the same way. OK.
Constitutionally perhaps, but there's a ratchet effect. How on earth would you justify in principle re-creating the WLQ (as opposed to tolerating its continued existence)? Edit: sorry screwed up the quoting.
Grayling confirms there will be a vote in government time to repeal the Hunting Act 2004, an outrageous breach of the people of England's fundamental rights.
I hope the SNP don't decide to abstain. Animal cruelty does not recognise national borders.
This isn't a one-off. UAF burnt an effigy of Nick Griffin on the night of his QT appearance, Farage has been chased out of pubs in Scotland and England, and now there's this.
It's an utter disgrace. Checking Twitter, there's a good photo of at least one of the culprits, so hopefully some action can be taken.
Assaulting people you disagree with is the most virtuous form of virtue signalling.
And can be scrapped by a future Government in the same way. OK.
That doesn't necessarily follow. Assume you amend the Standing Orders as follows:
(1) New Standing Order X on English votes shall have affect. (2) No motion amending Standing Order X shall have effect unless approved by the House either unanimously, or, on division, with the approval of two thirds of the members present and with a majority of MPs representing constituencies in England.
Who knows whether that entrenchment would have effect.
IMHO, that should be about how voting Out would lead us to joining EFTA, which is actually voting *for* the free trading block that people thought they were voting for in 1975, but without any of the political and economic integration, with extra judicial action at a European level.
I'm not sure that that EFTA really exists any more. It's rather hard to disentangle the rump of EFTA from the EEA. From the EFTA website, the organisation is responsible for:
The European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement, which enables three of the four EFTA Member States (Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway) to participate in the EU’s Internal Market. (Switzerland has its own bilateral agreement with the EU.
In practice, I believe that the UK is so large that there would have to be an explicit new trade agreement with the EU. In particular there would have to be a very specific agreement on Financial Services.
@AP: BREAKING: Vladimir Putin accuses US of meddling in FIFA affairs, trying to take away Russia's World Cup
It's not exactly a secret the US investigation began after the US bid failed.
Launching an investigation after losing, and with a very strong suspicion that the winning bidder cheated, is hardly an unusual thing to do.
It's a shame they didn't do something before USA 94. A lot of this stuff was happening in their backyard, CONCACAF etc., US sponsors, should have been cleared up years ago.
Mr. Palmer, 'think beyond nationalities' sums up the ideological dream of those committed to the deranged EU project.
You can't manufacture nationality or identity.
By definition, the UK will always be in a minority, and we will always be paying for the privilege of membership whereas others are net recipients. The accounts haven't been signed off for about two decades, the economic policy is demented and the proposed Financial Transaction Tax is little more than a punitive raid on the City of London. Would Germany tolerate a Car Manufacturing Tax? Would France accept a Farmers' Levy?
The EU is doomed to failure because it's attempting to unite too many countries for political reasons, not pragmatic ones. It's trying to force together Greece and Germany, Latvia and Spain. But these countries have wildly varying scale, economies, demographics and cultures.
It's epitomised by the collective madness of trying to enforce a single interest rate across the eurozone. How can Greece perpetually benefit from having the same interest rate (and exchange rate) as Germany? It can't. At any given time the eurozone interest/exchange rate will be harmful to a significant number of member states.
And can be scrapped by a future Government in the same way. OK.
That very point was made to me by a Cabinet Minister back in about 2012, when I asked what was happening about the West Lothian Question. The response was that it could easily be done by Standing Order, but that it could equally easily be undone, and the only time it mattered in practice would be when Labour had a majority in the UK but not in England, when they could undo it.
Having said that, I think the SNP factor changes the calculation.
And then there's the fact that a great many of those 'workers' are effectively slaves, tricked into coming to Qatar and then having the passports confiscated by their employer.
I disagree. Getting bogged down in detail is not where BOO should be going. Left-wing eurosceptics have a different vision of the future to right wing eurosceptics.
The BOO campaign is not a political party. It can't determine what our future will be post-exit.
But that is exactly the weakness of the BOO position, and why they will lose massively. They are selling a pig in a poke. No-one has the faintest clue what Out would actually mean, and the BOO side are doing absolutely nothing to define it. That will leave space for the Stay In side to define it for them, and the definition they will provide will be nasty, brutish and short: 'millions of jobs lost'. [For the avoidance of doubt, since I know I will as usual be misprepresented by the Kippers here, I am NOT saying that this definition is accurate, merely that it will be used by the BBC, the unions, Labour, the CBI, the City, and many others, and that it will work].
It's probably already too late for the BOOers to correct this situation - they should have started three years ago rather than working, as so many did, to put Ed Miliband into No 10. Even if it's not too late, there's precious little sign of the BOOers actually having a coherent vision, or even wanting one. That's probably because the detail is, actually, very tricky: if you address the jobs issue by a comprehensive trade agreement with the EU, you're going to to have to accept much of the loss of sovereignty which is the motivation of the BOOers in the first place. There's no getting away from that.
The way for BOO to win is by appointing a credible spokesperson, setting up an effective campaigning organisation (now) and focusing its messages on the undecided, not the committed Outters.
IMHO, that should be about how voting Out would lead us to joining EFTA, which is actually voting *for* the free trading block that people thought they were voting for in 1975, but without any of the political and economic integration, with extra judicial action at a European level.
The best thing that the NO-ers could do is to lock all the committed NO-ers in a basement until the referendum is completed. Nothing has the ability to scare off the undecideds like the current collective rallying to the NO flag.
I hope the SNP don't decide to abstain. Animal cruelty does not recognise national borders.
Assume the Scottish Parliament decided to repeal section 1 of the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002 (asp 6). Would it be legitimate for a majority of MPs at Westminster to extend the Hunting Act 2004 to Scotland, because "animal cruelty does not recognised national borders"? I think not. Scottish MPs may have every legal right to vote on this matter, but they have no moral right to vote to prevent the people of England exercising their basic human right to tear apart foxes with hounds, if the majority of English MPs vote to restore that fundamental right.
IMHO, that should be about how voting Out would lead us to joining EFTA, which is actually voting *for* the free trading block that people thought they were voting for in 1975, but without any of the political and economic integration, with extra judicial action at a European level.
I'm not sure that that EFTA really exists any more. It's rather hard to disentangle the rump of EFTA from the EEA. From the EFTA website, the organisation is responsible for:
The European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement, which enables three of the four EFTA Member States (Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway) to participate in the EU’s Internal Market. (Switzerland has its own bilateral agreement with the EU.
In practice, I believe that the UK is so large that there would have to be an explicit new trade agreement with the EU. In particular there would have to be a very specific agreement on Financial Services.
It does exist, but I'd be more than happy for a bespoke deal to be negotiated with the EU. Dogmatic adherence to abstract principles like unlimited freedom of movement will not work for us either.
What I like about these referenda is the novel sensation of being a floating voter. I'm still not sure how I'd have voted if I lived in Scotland!
The real novel sensation is knowing that your vote matters as much as anyone else's and you aren't just going through the motions in an ultra-safe constituency.
Sad to hear of Carswell reportedly being assaulted by 'protesters'..
Yes, they are anti-democratic scum.
And idiots. First of all, much of their complaint was directed at the Tories - and Carswell is not a Tory anymore - and, second, that he was racist ignoring that Carswell doesn't have a single racist bone in his body.
These people just enjoy hating and having a licence to act out their worst human impulses.
Grayling confirms there will be a vote in government time to repeal the Hunting Act 2004, an outrageous breach of the people of England's fundamental rights.
I hope the SNP don't decide to abstain. Animal cruelty does not recognise national borders.
Foxhunting has nothing to do with animal cruelty. I have done rather a lot of it, and you probably haven't, so I know what I am talking about and you don't.
Your point is bad anyway. Why would one not argue, a fortiori, I hope the SNP doesn't abstain from votes on the English NHS. The principle that patients should not have to drink from flower vases does not recognise national borders? etc etc etc for pretty much any legislation you can think of.
Getting EVEL through simply by the use of Standing Orders is a remarkable coup - but it makes you wonder why it wasn't thought of before?
It's now in the government's interest to do something about it, which it wasn't under Labour or the Coalition. Hopefully we will see in the medium term a proper constitutional convention that looks at Barnett formula and how a future English government could be constituted differently from the UK government.
I know I'm tempting fate, but so far the Tory party is maintaining discipline on the referendum is a good sign for the Tory party.
Cue someone defecting to UKIP this afternoon.
On that, they are. They are certainly not doing so on the human rights reform where some clearly never took the manifesto pledge seriously, because they never believed Cameron would get a majority.
And can be scrapped by a future Government in the same way. OK.
That very point was made to me by a Cabinet Minister back in about 2012, when I asked what was happening about the West Lothian Question. The response was that it could easily be done by Standing Order, but that it could equally easily be undone, and the only time it mattered in practice would be when Labour had a majority in the UK but not in England, when they could undo it.
Having said that, I think the SNP factor changes the calculation.
Any govt can change law. How would labour get elected in England if it put such a change in its manifesto?
I disagree. Getting bogged down in detail is not where BOO should be going. Left-wing eurosceptics have a different vision of the future to right wing eurosceptics.
The BOO campaign is not a political party. It can't determine what our future will be post-exit.
But that is exactly the weakness of the BOO position, and why they will lose massively. They are selling a pig in a poke. No-one has the faintest clue what Out would actually mean, and the BOO side are doing absolutely nothing to define it. That will leave space for the Stay In side to define it for them, and the definition they will provide will be nasty, brutish and short: 'millions of jobs lost'. [For the avoidance of doubt, since I know I will as usual be misprepresented by the Kippers here, I am NOT saying that this definition is accurate, merely that it will be used by the BBC, the unions, Labour, the CBI, the City, and many others, and that it will work].
It's probably already too late for the BOOers to correct this situation - they should have started three years ago rather than working, as so many did, to put Ed Miliband into No 10. Even if it's not too late, there's precious little sign of the BOOers actually having a coherent vision, or even wanting one. That's probably because the detail is, actually, very tricky: if you address the jobs issue by a comprehensive trade agreement with the EU, you're going to to have to accept much of the loss of sovereignty which is the motivation of the BOOers in the first place. There's no getting away from that.
The way for BOO to win is by appointing a credible spokesperson, setting up an effective campaigning organisation (now) and focusing its messages on the undecided, not the committed Outters.
IMHO, that should be about how voting Out would lead us to joining EFTA, which is actually voting *for* the free trading block that people thought they were voting for in 1975, but without any of the political and economic integration, with extra judicial action at a European level.
The best thing that the NO-ers could do is to lock all the committed NO-ers in a basement until the referendum is completed. Nothing has the ability to scare off the undecideds like the current collective rallying to the NO flag.
@AP: BREAKING: Vladimir Putin accuses US of meddling in FIFA affairs, trying to take away Russia's World Cup
It's not exactly a secret the US investigation began after the US bid failed.
Launching an investigation after losing, and with a very strong suspicion that the winning bidder cheated, is hardly an unusual thing to do.
Nor do their motivations matters all that much given what may turn out to be endemic corruption in Fifa that needs to be exposed. One of the most bizarre forms of reasoning you occasionally see, and I hope we won't on this issue, is legitimate criticisms and concerns dismissed solely on the basis that the person making them is not whiter than white. While not irrelevant, if the criticism is valid and backed up, it's not destructive to the criticism.
Re Morris Dancer's 'You cannot manufacture nationality or identity', I actually think you can - but it normally takes a long time and needs to grow out of something really substantive and hopefully emotive. The EU's problem is the end vision being driven for was and is not what a lot of people, especially in Britain, want or expected from it, and dressing up a new identity without having got people on baord with the idea first makes it look artificial and souless.
That's a nonsense chart. According to the article/blog it comes from
"Some of these numbers (like Sochi's) are third-party estimates, others (like Beijing's) are based on official numbers that are almost certainly an undercount. And it's tough to do an apples-to-apples comparison here, since the Qatar estimates include the deaths of all migrant workers after the announcement of Qatar's successful bid in 2010, while other countries' figures may only include deaths directly related to, say, stadium construction."
Can somebody please explain the appeal of the Daily Express? I can't for the life of me work out why you would pick that up over the Daily Mail. I don't agree with either paper from an editorial perspective, but at least the Mail seems to have some decent content.
Can somebody please explain the appeal of the Daily Express? I can't for the life of me work out why you would pick that up over the Daily Mail. I don't agree with either paper from an editorial perspective, but at least the Mail seems to have some decent content.
Well the Express say they are the world's greatest newspaper.
Perhaps some of their readers actually believe that.
IMHO, that should be about how voting Out would lead us to joining EFTA, which is actually voting *for* the free trading block that people thought they were voting for in 1975, but without any of the political and economic integration, with extra judicial action at a European level.
I'm not sure that that EFTA really exists any more. It's rather hard to disentangle the rump of EFTA from the EEA. From the EFTA website, the organisation is responsible for:
The European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement, which enables three of the four EFTA Member States (Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway) to participate in the EU’s Internal Market. (Switzerland has its own bilateral agreement with the EU.
In practice, I believe that the UK is so large that there would have to be an explicit new trade agreement with the EU. In particular there would have to be a very specific agreement on Financial Services.
In effect leaving the EU would still leave us being in the single market like Norway, with free movement. But we might have to arrange this from outside. We do not want to be in the euro or ever closer union, this has been said many times by the Tories. Mr Palmers comments show Labour's thinking. We need to and intend to negotiate for our position outside the euro and rules about movement of labour. These are necessary and if not forthcoming we might well vote OUT. But let's not pretend OUT would be a bed of roses or in effect any real difference.
High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill has formally been carried over from the last Parliament. The European Union Referendum Bill and the Scotland Bill have been read the first time.
Can somebody please explain the appeal of the Daily Express? I can't for the life of me work out why you would pick that up over the Daily Mail. I don't agree with either paper from an editorial perspective, but at least the Mail seems to have some decent content.
Well the Express say they are the world's greatest newspaper.
Perhaps some of their readers actually believe that.
Their weather coverage 'Worst Winter Ever' ect is ridiculous. Do any decent journalists still work there or has Desmond hounded them all out?
That's a nonsense chart. According to the article/blog it comes from
"Some of these numbers (like Sochi's) are third-party estimates, others (like Beijing's) are based on official numbers that are almost certainly an undercount. And it's tough to do an apples-to-apples comparison here, since the Qatar estimates include the deaths of all migrant workers after the announcement of Qatar's successful bid in 2010, while other countries' figures may only include deaths directly related to, say, stadium construction."
It's illustrative. The numbers could be 50% off and the effect would be the same.
Mr Felix I'm not sure of your point. Cameron has repeatedly stated he will campaign to stay in a reformed EU, when it becomes obvious there is no such thing his credibility on the subject is in tatters.
I think the point is many BOOers seem to expect In to win even after that truth is exposed - and I agree we will not reform anything substantive - the implication being they expect the public will be fooled by Cameron despite all the people presumably pointing out the truth.
Correct, however I'm interested in how traditional labour supporters feel, instinctively they'll want to oppose a tory stance which is IN. It's no coincidence that immediately after the election Labour changed their stance on the referendum having been told on thousands of council estates that people were concerned about immigration.
Genuine question to PBers of all hues - beyond simply leaving, what would you change about the EU to improve it? What are the fundamental problems you see with it?
As an instinctive IN-er, but with a pragmatic understanding of its shortcomings, the two major issues for me are inefficiency and lack of democracy. I'm much less bothered about free movement.
My primary concern probably won't make the top 10 issues in the debate. It is that as the EZ inevitably integrates further (if only to stay together) they will start to use their combined voting power with QMV to reshape the market in ways favourable to their interests. This may be blatant (such as requiring financial institutions offering services to the EZ to have their head office in the EZ or imposing financial transaction style taxes that are basically being imposed on London for their benefit) or more subtle (such as increasing the proportion of "investments" made in the EZ bloc effectively requiring our tax payers to subsidise theirs.
Stopping this and providing us with sufficient protections as by far the largest and most significant non EZ member is going to be difficult. I think the definition of QMV will need to be changed to reflect the ins and the outs requiring some sort of majority on both. But if we cannot protect our essential national interests that would be a compelling argument to leave.
Ha, and good to see the Speccie's lawyers give them a version of Arkell v Pressdram by way of response!
I remember Ian Hislop saying in an interview that he used to get at least one letter a week from Messrs. Carter-Ruck, usually regarding someone who took huge offense to being exposed doing something he shouldn't by the Eye's investigators.
Grayling confirms there will be a vote in government time to repeal the Hunting Act 2004, an outrageous breach of the people of England's fundamental rights.
Right, I've placed a nominal sum (all my bets are nominal, I have no disposable income to speak of) on Jowell or Khan winning the nomination @1.32. Politics.co.uk's figures show that few if anyone else will be on the paper - just two other nominations and without checking Abbott's looks like Hackney, her home party.
Plus since all CLPs have gone with a man and a woman (in theory they could have gone two women) Jowell and Khan will do a better job keeping out other candidates.
Can somebody please explain the appeal of the Daily Express? I can't for the life of me work out why you would pick that up over the Daily Mail. I don't agree with either paper from an editorial perspective, but at least the Mail seems to have some decent content.
It depends on why people buy a newspaper. If you want to read a newspaper that confirms your suspicions that the country is going to the dogs, including the very newspaper that you are reading, then you might need to buy the Express. Also, I think the Mail has a lot of Hello magazine style content that some readers might find insufferable.
Can somebody please explain the appeal of the Daily Express? I can't for the life of me work out why you would pick that up over the Daily Mail. I don't agree with either paper from an editorial perspective, but at least the Mail seems to have some decent content.
Well the Express say they are the world's greatest newspaper.
Perhaps some of their readers actually believe that.
Their weather coverage 'Worst Winter Ever' ect is ridiculous. Do any decent journalists still work there or has Desmond hounded them all out?
I saw that the Mirror had an article written by the journalist responsible for most of the Express weather stories. I don't know whether that means he's been pushed out by the Express, or if he's simply syndicating his material to other papers now.
Right, I've placed a nominal sum (all my bets are nominal, I have no disposable income to speak of) on Jowell or Khan winning the nomination @1.32.
SkyBet would give you a combined 1.61
I will consider an account, in that case; I don't have one at the moment. Surely 1.61 must be value...
Better hurry, I expect they'll wake up soon.
Alternatively back them both to win which pays about 6/5. (Effectively taking 4/11 on Labour winning). Together with 22/1 Zac Goldsmith you should be fine...
Comments
Have free borders to travel and reside, but not to claim any benefits unless have paid the relevant taxes for at least ten years.
Forget about common currency between unbalanced economies.
No EU law/agreement is valid unless passed by each parliament of each member country.
"All this is a valid objection to having referendums at all, and leaving it to Parliament."
I agree with your view in general, but the exception that proves the rule is that the people have the right to decide who makes the laws under which they live.
I can't think of a fairer way than a referendum to consult the people in this particular case.
I appreciate it's irrational to make future spending decisions based on sunk costs, but that's what will be done because it's politically unacceptable any other way.
So, if we were to vote No, we could be asked to reconsider.
It's probably already too late for the BOOers to correct this situation - they should have started three years ago rather than working, as so many did, to put Ed Miliband into No 10. Even if it's not too late, there's precious little sign of the BOOers actually having a coherent vision, or even wanting one. That's probably because the detail is, actually, very tricky: if you address the jobs issue by a comprehensive trade agreement with the EU, you're going to to have to accept much of the loss of sovereignty which is the motivation of the BOOers in the first place. There's no getting away from that.
Combine that with the ridiculous position where we are forced to accept unskilled EU immigrants, and then when they can't find a job, pay for them with benefits, healthcare and education for their children, and yet people with say, foreign spouses from outside the EU need to prove they can earn £18,500+ per year, pay a surcharge for their possible use of the NHS (£600 in advance) and pay just shy of £1000 for a visa, even if they are well skilled and have a head start in integrating into the community.
Also will Scots, Welsh and Ulster MPs be allowed to take part in such debates?
Will we be forced to take thousands of African immigrants currently in Greece and Italy
Will we be impacted by the Transaction Tax whether we want it or not
Will we continue to be in "ever closer union"
Will we end up pickup up the tab for GrExit and financial fallout for other Eurodisasters despite not being in the Euro ?
Will prisoners get votes ?
Will we be able to throw extremists out of the country when we need to or will they be able to stay because of their "right to family life"
All we know is that what ever it delivers it will be outside the control of the democratic will of the British people thanks for the glorious system of qualified majority voting.
BOO don't need a solution, they just need to convince the people that they are not in control of their own laws, country and borders, and pose the question "who's country is it anyway ?". Its up to politicians that follow to turn the desire of the people into reality.
Provided they are able to make a generous offer to non-Europeans I think they would be able to put FIFA out of its misery pretty quickly.
It's not an easy hand to play at all.
I take it, we're all happy with the Question?
Publicising that looks like the best chance of getting a No vote - if it isn't final then more people will vote for it, and we might actually get e.g. treaty change.
Cameron is gambling on a YES vote to stay in the EU. Problem is that the NO voters may be motivated to vote and win because the EU is such a massive issue for millions of people. Just hope that there is a balanced debate and as someone pro EU that YES voters are motivated to go out to vote.
UK citizens living in mainland EU should be given the vote, because they could be the ones mostly affected by a NO vote. They currently have residency and healthcare rights as EU citizens, which might be subject to change if the UK withdraws.
I don't think the millions of jobs lost story will have much traction, and I do think that things will be more complex and less predictable than you suppose. A lot will depend on the words and actions, and UK public perception, of people like Merkel and Hollande and Juncker.
I think pre-election you were mocking the silly kippers for prospectively letting in a Mili led government and depriving themselves of the very thing they wanted until 2020 at the earliest. Does it not look now a bit as if they have rather played a blinder?
Sad to hear of Carswell reportedly being assaulted by 'protesters'.
Mr. Eagles, quite.
An uphill battle, though, getting the various UEFA members to fall into line will a challenge. Like herding rabid cats through a warehouse full of mice and canaries.
Working out a detailed agreement that would appeal to right wing Conservatives would alienate anyone who isn't a right wing Conservative and vice versa.
IMHO, that should be about how voting Out would lead us to joining EFTA, which is actually voting *for* the free trading block that people thought they were voting for in 1975, but without any of the political and economic integration, with extra judicial action at a European level.
Actually, and you may all be surprised to hear this, I'm hoping that Priti will be leading the No campaign. If No wins, she would be PM before you could say "Up Yours Delors".
Indeed. We can treat it as a vote of No Confidence, rather than the final deal.
Lab gain from Con (10):
Brentford & Isleworth
Chester
Dewsbury
Ealing Central and Acton
Enfield North
Hove
Ilford N
Lancaster & Fleetwood
Wirral W
Wolverhampton SW
Con gain From Lab (8)
Bolton W
Derby N
Gower
Morley and Outwood
Plymouth Moorview
Southampton Itchen
Telford
Vale of Clywd
"All about the Plymouth Moorview!!!!!!!" was one of the top 10 posts of the night from Ave it!
And can be scrapped by a future Government in the same way. OK.
This isn't a one-off. UAF burnt an effigy of Nick Griffin on the night of his QT appearance, Farage has been chased out of pubs in Scotland and England, and now there's this.
It's an utter disgrace. Checking Twitter, there's a good photo of at least one of the culprits, so hopefully some action can be taken.
And can be scrapped by a future Government in the same way. OK.
Constitutionally perhaps, but there's a ratchet effect. How on earth would you justify in principle re-creating the WLQ (as opposed to tolerating its continued existence)?
Edit: sorry screwed up the quoting.
The European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement, which enables three of the four EFTA Member States (Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway) to participate in the EU’s Internal Market. (Switzerland has its own bilateral agreement with the EU.
http://www.efta.int/about-efta/european-free-trade-association
In practice, I believe that the UK is so large that there would have to be an explicit new trade agreement with the EU. In particular there would have to be a very specific agreement on Financial Services.
You can't manufacture nationality or identity.
By definition, the UK will always be in a minority, and we will always be paying for the privilege of membership whereas others are net recipients. The accounts haven't been signed off for about two decades, the economic policy is demented and the proposed Financial Transaction Tax is little more than a punitive raid on the City of London. Would Germany tolerate a Car Manufacturing Tax? Would France accept a Farmers' Levy?
The EU is doomed to failure because it's attempting to unite too many countries for political reasons, not pragmatic ones. It's trying to force together Greece and Germany, Latvia and Spain. But these countries have wildly varying scale, economies, demographics and cultures.
It's epitomised by the collective madness of trying to enforce a single interest rate across the eurozone. How can Greece perpetually benefit from having the same interest rate (and exchange rate) as Germany? It can't. At any given time the eurozone interest/exchange rate will be harmful to a significant number of member states.
Having said that, I think the SNP factor changes the calculation.
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Cue someone defecting to UKIP this afternoon.
These people just enjoy hating and having a licence to act out their worst human impulses.
Your point is bad anyway. Why would one not argue, a fortiori, I hope the SNP doesn't abstain from votes on the English NHS. The principle that patients should not have to drink from flower vases does not recognise national borders? etc etc etc for pretty much any legislation you can think of.
Re Morris Dancer's 'You cannot manufacture nationality or identity', I actually think you can - but it normally takes a long time and needs to grow out of something really substantive and hopefully emotive. The EU's problem is the end vision being driven for was and is not what a lot of people, especially in Britain, want or expected from it, and dressing up a new identity without having got people on baord with the idea first makes it look artificial and souless.
"Some of these numbers (like Sochi's) are third-party estimates, others (like Beijing's) are based on official numbers that are almost certainly an undercount. And it's tough to do an apples-to-apples comparison here, since the Qatar estimates include the deaths of all migrant workers after the announcement of Qatar's successful bid in 2010, while other countries' figures may only include deaths directly related to, say, stadium construction."
Perhaps some of their readers actually believe that.
LibDems to consider backing assisted dying. Thought the voters had already decided that for them
We need to and intend to negotiate for our position outside the euro and rules about movement of labour. These are necessary and if not forthcoming we might well vote OUT. But let's not pretend OUT would be a bed of roses or in effect any real difference.
Tessa Jowell emerges as clear favourite in London mayoral race
And
Politics.co.uk understands that Khan has secured the backing of Labour's biggest union-funders Unite, who will declare for him next month.
http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2015/05/28/tessa-jowell-emerges-as-clear-favourite-in-london-mayoral-ra
For the election:
Tessa Jowell - Suspended;
Sadiq Khan - 4.50.
For the candidacy (when is it decided? who decides?):
Tessa Jowell - 2.25
Sadiq Khan - 3.25
It does feel like one of them...
EDIT: I see the linked article http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2015/05/28/tessa-jowell-emerges-as-clear-favourite-in-london-mayoral-ra answers my questions
Stopping this and providing us with sufficient protections as by far the largest and most significant non EZ member is going to be difficult. I think the definition of QMV will need to be changed to reflect the ins and the outs requiring some sort of majority on both. But if we cannot protect our essential national interests that would be a compelling argument to leave.
And since you have to nominate a woman, it looks like Tessa will be able to spuriously claim more nominations than Sadiq.
NB Sadiq is clear favourite on betfair.
I remember Ian Hislop saying in an interview that he used to get at least one letter a week from Messrs. Carter-Ruck, usually regarding someone who took huge offense to being exposed doing something he shouldn't by the Eye's investigators.
Plus since all CLPs have gone with a man and a woman (in theory they could have gone two women) Jowell and Khan will do a better job keeping out other candidates.